CRLP/13163/2013 of Ogirala Ravi Prasad Vs The State of A.P. on 31 December 2013

ORDER:

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMARCRIMINAL PETITION No.13163 OF 2013

This criminal petition is filed under Section 482 CrPC by thepetitioner/A-1 seeking quashing of investigation in Crime No.153 of2012 of Gudlur Police Station, Prakasam District, which was registeredinitially for the offences punishable under Sections 420 and 471 IPC,which was subsequently altered to Sections 120(B), 468, 409, 471 and420 read with 34 IPC.

The facts in issue are as under :

The Branch Manager, Syndicate Bank, Pedapavani ofLingasamudram Mandal, Prakasam District, lodged a report statingthat number of persons of Pedapavani and neighbouring villagesavailed crop loans from Syndicate Bank, Pedapavani Branch. Due tonon-payment of the due amount, the officials of the Bank contactedthem for recovery of the said amount. Their enquiries revealed that thesaid loanees do not possess any land of their own but however theywere extended the facility of crop loan. The informant submitted thedetails of land records submitted by some of the loanees weresubmitted to the Tahasildar, Gudulur Mandal. After verification of thesame, the Tahasildar submitted a report to the Bank stating that theland records produced by the borrowers were not genuine. On comingto know about the same, the informant informed the higher authoritiesi.e., Regional Office, Syndicate Bank, Nellore about the borrowersobtaining loan on the basis of fake documents. Notices were issued tothe borrowers for repayment of the amount due to the Bank. Out of 94transactions which took place in the Bank, 78 transactions were foundto be fake and the amount withdrawn by submitting fake land adangalswas Rs.60,97,000/-. Basing on these allegations, the above crimecame to be registered.

The learned counsel for the petitioner mainly submits that evenaccepting the allegations in the report to be true, no offence is madeout against the petitioner. According to him the petitioner whiledischarging his duties as a Manager of the Bank sanctioned loans byrelying upon the certificates issued by the Tahasildar and therefore, itcannot be said that the petitioner has dishonestly or fraudulentlysanctioned crop loans without verifying the records.

On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutoropposed the application contending that the allegations in the reportdo make out a case against the petitioner and as such the inherentpower under Section 482 CrPC cannot be invoked to interdict theinvestigation at the threshold.

The powers possessed by the High Court under Section 482 ofthe code are very wide and the very plenitude of the power requiresgreat caution in its exercise. Court must be careful to see that itsdecision in exercise of this power is based on sound principles. Theinherent power should not be exercised to stifle a legitimateprosecution. The High Court being the highest court of a State shouldnormally refrain from giving a prima facie decision in a case where theentire facts are incomplete and hazy, more so when the evidence hasnot been collected and produced before the Court and the issuesinvolved, whether factual or legal, are of magnitude and cannot beseen in their true perspective without sufficient material. The ApexCourt held that no hard-and-fast rule can be laid down in regard tocases in which the High Court will exercise its extraordinaryjurisdiction of quashing the proceeding at any stage (Janata Dal v.

H.S. Chowdhary[[1]] and Raghubir Saran (Dr.) v. State of Bihar[[2]])

The material placed before this Court would disclose that theSyndicate Bank, Industrial Relations Division issued a notice to thepetitioner calling upon the petitioner to submit his remarks to theallegations made with regard to grant of agricultural crop loans to 91

Conclusion

beneficiaries. The said notice clearly indicates that the loans weregranted without verifying the 10(1) adangals and also the extent of theland held by the beneficiaries. The petitioner herein gave a replydenying the allegations made against him. According to him more than1000 SKCC loans were granted from his branch and that due topressure some of the documents were not completely filled and blankswere left, which made the petitioner himself to fillup the blanks. Hefurther submits that he was bonafidely acted on the certificates issuedby V.R.O. in favour of the beneficiaries.

The remand report which is placed on record clearly indicate thattaking advantage of some relaxation in the rules/circulars A-95 to A-97 hatched up a plan to secure crop loans from Syndicate Bank,subjugated A-1 i.e., the petitioner herein, lured A-2 and A-3 withwrongful gain, and got fake adangals prepared through A-2 and A-3 inthe name of their relatives and friends. Using the same as genuine, A-95 to A-97 got loan applications filled up with their friends and relativesin Syndicate Bank, Peddapavani village, wherein A-1 sanctioned theloans on the basis of those fake adangals, knowing fully well that theyare forged and fake. The accused gave 10% of the sanctioned loanamount to A-1 i.e., the Branch Manager, Rs.3,000/- for each fakeadangal to A-2 and A-3. It is further alleged that A-95 to A-97 collectedRs.10,000/- to Rs.20,000/- from each beneficiary . The remand reportfurther discloses that on 09.08.2013 a notice under Section 41(A) 2CrPC was given to A-1 asking him to appear on 12.08.2013 . On12.08.2013 A-1 attended but did not give any information. Therefore,another notice was issued to A-1 under Section 41(A) 2 CrPCrequesting him to appear before the Inspector of Police on13.08.2013. Though the said notice was served, the accused did notcooperate with the investigation agency. Notices were again issued toA-1 directing him to attend interview on 14.08.2013 but the accuseddid not appear before the investigating agency. No explanation is forthcoming as to why the petitioner did not appear before theinvestigating agency.

As stated above, the competency of the V.R.O. in issuing thecertificate is not in dispute. But the main allegations in the report isthat the contents of the certificate issued by the V.R.O. are alleged tobe fake and fraudulent. The petitioner herein filed Crl.P.No.11327 of2013 before this Court seeking release in the event of his arrest in theabove crime. By an order dated 18.10.2013 the said application underSection 438 CrPC was dismissed by taking into consideration theallegations made against the petitioner. Being unsuccessful inobtaining anticipatory bail, the petitioner herein filed the presentapplication under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of theproceedings. When the petitioner was denied a relief under Section438 CrPC by this Court, entertaining the application under Section 482CrPC for quashing the proceedings would not arise. Apart from thatthe case is still at the stage of investigation and specific allegations aremade alleging that the petitioner along with others colluded anddefrauded the Bank to a tune of Rs.60,00,000/-. Since the allegationsin the report prima facie make out the offences alleged against thepetitioner, this Court is of the view that inherent powers under Section482 CrPC cannot be invoked to stall the investigation at the thresholdand as such the present application is liable to be dismissed.

Accordingly, the criminal petition filed for quashing ofinvestigation in Crime No.153 of 2012 of Gudlur Police Station,Prakasam District is dismissed.

As a sequel to it, the miscellaneous petitions pending if any inthis criminal petition, shall stand dismissed.

_____________________

C. PRAVEEN KUMAR, J

Date:31.12.2013GM

[1](1992(4) SCC 305)

[2](AIR 1964 SC 1)